[0:03] We declare the meeting of the
[0:06] Oxford Township Planning Commission
[0:11] open today, Tuesday, September 29, 2026, at 7:00 p.m.
[0:14] Let's stand for
[0:15] greetings.
[0:18] I pledge
[0:18] allegiance to the flag of the
[0:20] United States of
[0:21] America and to the republic for which it
[0:22] stands,
[0:23] one nation under
[0:24] God, indivisible,
[0:25] with liberty and
[0:26] justice for
[0:27] all. Madam Secretary,
[0:32] please conduct a
[0:33] roll call.
[0:34] Ballard is
[0:35] present.
[0:36] Flynn is
[0:36] present.
[0:37] Nok is missing. The dust is
[0:40] present.
[0:40] Schultz is
[0:41] present.
[0:42] I move to
[0:46] approve
[0:46] the absence of Regina
[0:48] Nock. I
[0:49] support.
[0:50] Sorry. Support
[0:52] from Schultz.
[0:53] Everyone for it?
[0:54] I am against it. No. OK. Is
[0:58] there a proposal
[0:59] to approve the agenda
[1:00] for today,
[1:01] September 29?
[1:02] I propose
[1:03] to approve the agenda
[1:04] for today,
[1:06] September 15, 2026. Mr.
[1:07] Chairman, let me
[1:08] interrupt briefly,
[1:10] I wanted to know if
[1:12] you have seen the
[1:13] 10,000 Industrial case review, the
[1:14] submitted plan, the response,
[1:15] and
[1:16] the comments sent by
[1:17] Commissioner
[1:18] Pilak.
[1:20] I wanted to know if
[1:21] you would like to discuss
[1:22] this in more
[1:23] detail today. So, I
[1:24] think we are on the
[1:25] right track. I
[1:27] have printouts of what
[1:28] they printed
[1:29] on a large scale,
[1:30] and another possible
[1:31] option that might
[1:33] go with or
[1:34] complement this.
[1:36] Otherwise, we
[1:37] decide for ourselves how to
[1:38] act, guided by
[1:39] your instructions and
[1:41] resolutions. But
[1:44] at the risk of
[1:44] repeating myself, is
[1:46] this the
[1:47] chairman's sole decision
[1:48] or should the
[1:49] other commissioners be consulted?
[1:50] You decide.
[1:51] Do you want to add this? Yes.
[1:53] And then Yes. Mario
[1:54] saw it, and he also
[1:56] saw the response from
[1:57] Leslie.
[1:58] What are your thoughts?
[2:01] I noticed that. But
[2:02] I didn't have the
[2:03] opportunity to
[2:04] look into it in detail.
[2:06] Therefore, I now propose to
[2:07] put this on the agenda for the
[2:08] next
[2:09] meeting.
[2:11] Of course? And they
[2:13] can continue
[2:14] building without
[2:15] it. Some things
[2:17] may not happen near the end of the year
[2:18] due to timing and
[2:19] circumstances. In the
[2:20] worst case scenario,
[2:21] they will build everything, and the
[2:22] landscaping
[2:23] will be postponed until
[2:24] spring, if that works out.
[2:25] But there's no
[2:26] need to rush. However,
[2:27] the consequence of the delay
[2:28] may be that this will not
[2:29] happen until spring.
[2:31] Yes. Besides, it
[2:32] seems Mario
[2:33] had additional
[2:34] offers. So
[2:35] the situation is a bit more
[2:36] complicated.
[2:36] OK.
[2:37] I like the
[2:38] idea of ​​putting this issue aside
[2:40] so everyone has a
[2:41] chance to
[2:42] realize what's
[2:42] going on.
[2:43] OK. Very good. I've
[2:45] prepared just in case
[2:47] you need
[2:47] printouts.
[2:48] But when we get
[2:49] to the
[2:50] commissioners' comments at the end
[2:51] , we could formally
[2:52] record this
[2:53] to add
[2:54] this consideration to the
[2:54] agenda for the
[2:55] next meeting
[2:56] .
[2:58] Now there is a motion
[3:00] to approve the
[3:01] agenda. The
[3:03] agenda
[3:04] is dated September 15.
[3:06] Yes, for some reason I didn't
[3:07] create a new one, but
[3:08] the one I posted on the
[3:09] site is from the 29th, but I
[3:10] didn't
[3:11] reprint yours
[3:12] because I already gave them to
[3:13] you. So for
[3:14] the vote, we will
[3:15] use the agenda
[3:17] dated
[3:18] tonight
[3:19] . Yes.
[3:20] For voting.
[3:21] Yes. Justin's
[3:23] probably from the 29th, and so are
[3:24] you.
[3:25] Yes.
[3:26] I just handed them over
[3:27] last week. So
[3:28] they usually
[3:29] get outdated ones.
[3:30] So, we have a
[3:31] motion
[3:32] to approve the agenda
[3:33] for
[3:33] tonight,
[3:35] September 29th.
[3:36] Second. Who is for it?
[3:39] I.
[3:40] Who is against?
[3:42] OK. Is there
[3:43] a motion
[3:43] to approve the minutes of
[3:45] the meeting of
[3:46] September 1, 2026?
[3:48] I propose to
[3:49] approve the minutes
[3:50] of September 1, 2026. I
[3:52] support.
[3:53] Who is for it?
[3:54] I.
[3:55] Who is against?
[3:56] OK. Do we have
[3:58] any correspondence
[3:59] ?
[3:59] OK.
[4:02] We invite
[4:02] the public to
[4:03] discuss issues
[4:05] not included on the
[4:05] agenda. No.
[4:08] OK. And
[4:10] we have no
[4:12] public hearings tonight,
[4:13] which brings us to the
[4:14] main event in the
[4:15] new business—
[4:16] the review of the
[4:17] site plan at
[4:18] 18 South Washington.
[4:19] Marie, I would ask you to
[4:22] first give
[4:23] us your assessment,
[4:25] and then we will give the
[4:28] gentleman present the opportunity to speak, if
[4:29] necessary.
[4:32] OK. Very good,
[4:33] Mr. Chairman. Good
[4:35] evening everyone.
[4:37] We are here today to
[4:37] discuss the
[4:38] proposed
[4:39] development of a new
[4:40] two-story
[4:41] building at
[4:42] 18 South Washington Street.
[4:43] It's on the east
[4:46] side of
[4:47] South Washington Street,
[4:48] south of
[4:49] Burdick.
[4:54] The site was previously occupied by a
[4:55] two-story
[4:56] building, which is
[4:57] located
[4:58] directly next
[4:59] to other buildings in the
[5:02] city's central business district. And the site itself
[5:06] was actually
[5:07] completely occupied by
[5:08] the building, since
[5:09] it is located in
[5:10] our center. So there
[5:14] were no natural features.
[5:17] The applicant proposes
[5:18] to construct a new
[5:19] two-story building
[5:20] with a partial basement,
[5:22] having approximately 2,300
[5:23] square feet on
[5:24] each level. The
[5:27] proposed
[5:28] use of the first
[5:29] floor is a restaurant, and
[5:31] the second floor is office
[5:32] space.
[5:35] Restaurant and office use is a
[5:36] permitted
[5:37] activity and
[5:38] building type in the C1 district,
[5:40] based on
[5:41] zoning regulations.
[5:43] We note that,
[5:44] technically, according to
[5:46] zoning regulations,
[5:47] this is also a
[5:49] demolition restriction zone. On May 19 of
[5:52] this year, the
[5:53] planning commission granted
[5:54] its final
[5:55] approval to demolish the
[5:57] original building
[5:58] and construct a new one.
[6:01] And, as most people
[6:02] know, this building has
[6:04] now been demolished.
[6:06] So today we are here to
[6:07] discuss
[6:08] the construction of a new
[6:09] facility. As I have already
[6:11] noted, I want
[6:12] to emphasize that
[6:13] the site
[6:14] was almost entirely
[6:15] occupied by a previous
[6:16] building, and the applicant
[6:17] proposes to build on
[6:18] most of it with a
[6:19] new structure in the
[6:21] city center. So
[6:26] most
[6:28] zoning requirements that are
[6:28] usually
[6:29] applied
[6:30] independently are not
[6:31] entirely appropriate here,
[6:32] since we are in the
[6:33] city center, and it is
[6:34] designed
[6:35] to provide
[6:36] parking, transportation, and
[6:37] other services in a
[6:38] shared format.
[6:47] But regarding the intended
[6:48] purpose and
[6:49] dimensional
[6:50] standards of the C1 zone and the
[6:51] form of development, the
[6:52] use
[6:53] of the facility itself is permitted by
[6:55] law, as is the type of
[6:56] two-story
[6:56] building in this
[6:57] area. So a
[7:01] two-story building
[7:02] meets these
[7:04] building form standards. It's worth
[7:06] noting that
[7:07] technically the maximum
[7:08] building height in this
[7:10] zone is 64 feet
[7:11] , but there is a minimum of
[7:13] 30 feet. The proposed
[7:14] building, as shown
[7:15] on the current plans
[7:17] before you, is
[7:18] 27 feet 8
[7:19] inches high. So we are
[7:20] asking the applicant
[7:21] to indicate how they
[7:22] plan to adjust
[7:24] the building to
[7:24] meet
[7:25] the standard, as there are
[7:27] several options,
[7:28] including changing
[7:29] the height of the parapet
[7:30] wall to 30 feet. This is
[7:35] mainly to
[7:37] ensure that
[7:38] the appearance of the building is
[7:38] consistent with the scale of
[7:40] Washington Street and in
[7:41] harmony with the
[7:41] neighboring structures.
[7:47] One aspect of the
[7:48] building code that we
[7:49] look at is that
[7:51] in addition to the
[7:52] use standards, we
[7:53] have form standards
[7:54] to ensure that the
[7:55] massing
[7:56] and scale of the building is appropriate to the
[7:58] downtown area, and they
[7:59] address
[8:00] things like the width of the
[8:01] building; as I
[8:02] said,
[8:03] off-
[8:04] street parking requirements do not
[8:05] apply here.
[8:13] A feature of
[8:14] the building standards
[8:15] is the requirement to
[8:16] ensure at least
[8:17] 70% transparency of the facade
[8:19] on the first floor of
[8:20] this building. This
[8:26] purpose
[8:26] involves
[8:27] the use of glass
[8:28] doors and windows.
[8:31] Two
[8:32] aluminum garage
[8:34] doors are offered, which will
[8:35] not provide
[8:36] full access
[8:37] to the building. They
[8:40] will be installed
[8:42] on a foundation
[8:43] wall
[8:44] about 2.5 feet high. So
[8:45] , in the end,
[8:46] it seems like everything should be
[8:47] compliant,
[8:48] but we ask
[8:49] the applicant to provide
[8:50] specific percentages
[8:51] to prove
[8:52] compliance.
[8:54] There are other
[8:54] standards that do not
[8:55] necessarily
[8:56] apply to
[8:57] this use.
[8:58] Another point
[9:00] I want to point out:
[9:01] all first-
[9:02] floor windows facing the
[9:03] street must be
[9:05] transparent. So they
[9:07] should not have the
[9:09] type of mirrored
[9:10] glazing that could
[9:11] cause glare
[9:12] or other aspects that
[9:18] distract drivers.
[9:20] Therefore, we must
[9:21] make sure that
[9:22] we can see through the glass
[9:23] freely. We
[9:24] simply ask
[9:25] to clarify what kind of glass
[9:26] will be used on the
[9:27] facade. Additionally,
[9:34] continuing the theme of
[9:35] discussing the
[9:36] architectural
[9:37] design and style of the
[9:38] building, they provided
[9:39] drawings of the facades. This
[9:42] will be a very attractive
[9:44] building. We believe
[9:45] that it is made in a
[9:46] modern style.
[9:47] More
[9:48] current materials are used here,
[9:49] as well as a variety of
[9:51] materials in
[9:51] contrasting
[9:52] combinations. So it's not a
[9:53] monotonous building.
[9:58] The only thing worth
[9:58] noting is that the
[10:00] horizontal and
[10:01] vertical walls
[10:02] create a very
[10:03] massive and
[10:03] uniform look.
[10:08] Another feature of
[10:09] the ordinance
[10:10] is that
[10:11] buildings must be
[10:17] compatible with
[10:17] adjacent structures
[10:19] . However, you know, in
[10:22] the north, it's red-
[10:24] orange brick.
[10:25] One building to
[10:26] the south is
[10:28] beige-painted brick with
[10:29] black accents.
[10:31] So, trying to
[10:34] stick to this
[10:35] particular style,
[10:36] to be very rigid
[10:38] and uniform, has
[10:39] its advantages and
[10:40] disadvantages. But ultimately
[10:44] , we just want the
[10:45] applicant to now
[10:46] consider the
[10:47] color scheme that
[10:49] is being proposed and
[10:49] make sure that
[10:51] any masonry
[10:51] used on the
[10:52] facade has an
[10:53] integrated color.
[10:56] This is simply a sign of
[10:58] high quality
[10:58] building
[10:59] materials. So, these are the
[11:01] main questions
[11:01] focused on
[11:02] the design of the building. As I
[11:04] said, this is one of the
[11:05] points of our
[11:06] comments regarding
[11:06] additional
[11:07] information: the
[11:08] proposed
[11:09] lighting does not
[11:09] require any
[11:10] special
[11:11] standards. If
[11:12] the applicant chooses
[11:13] to install additional
[11:14] lighting, we want
[11:16] to make sure it is
[11:17] fully shielded
[11:18] and directed downwards
[11:19] to avoid creating
[11:20] glare. And regarding
[11:26] other aspects of
[11:27] the site that may
[11:28] arise and that
[11:29] the applicant may
[11:30] wish to discuss
[11:31] regarding signage:
[11:32] technically the applicant will
[11:34] need to submit a
[11:35] separate application for
[11:36] the installation of the sign
[11:37] . Therefore, the fact that
[11:40] there are no
[11:41] details of signage on the site plan and facades is not
[11:42] unusual.
[11:46] Any
[11:46] regulations in
[11:48] effect at the time of
[11:48] application will
[11:50] apply to the
[11:51] facility. So,
[11:56] ultimately, this project
[11:57] will provide a new
[11:58] restaurant alternative for
[11:59] residents and
[12:00] visitors, and we
[12:01] believe it
[12:02] will complement the surrounding
[12:03] downtown facilities
[12:04] in this core area
[12:05] while meeting
[12:07] ordinance standards. Several
[12:08] points need to be
[12:09] addressed, as well as
[12:10] additional information
[12:11] . Therefore, we
[12:13] recommend that the
[12:14] Planning Commission grant
[12:16] approval for the
[12:16] site plan subject to a
[12:17] review of the plans that
[12:19] includes addressing the
[12:20] issue, specifying
[12:21] window type and
[12:22] transparency, providing
[12:23] building colors,
[12:24] and any other
[12:25] issues raised by the
[12:26] Village Engineer or
[12:28] Fire Chief
[12:29] . So, I am
[12:32] ready to answer
[12:33] any questions
[12:34] or comments.
[12:37] Mario, I had
[12:39] one question that
[12:40] was raised during
[12:41] your summary regarding
[12:42] height requirements. In
[12:44] my notes I
[12:45] used
[12:46] the term "facade". You
[12:47] used the term "
[12:48] parapet", which I
[12:49] believe is just
[12:50] the height above the
[12:51] roofline that they can
[12:52] adjust to
[12:53] maintain the
[12:54] maximum height.
[12:55] Right. That's right.
[12:57] Good.
[12:57] This is one option
[12:59] if they want to
[13:00] raise the roof, raise the
[13:01] ceiling height to
[13:02] have more
[13:04] space inside
[13:06] the structure. They
[13:07] can do it
[13:08] too. The simple solution
[13:09] is this,
[13:12] but a
[13:13] 5-foot-tall fake chimney won't
[13:14] solve the
[13:15] fundamental
[13:16] problem.
[13:18] No, things like a
[13:19] chimney or, for example, a
[13:21] staircase leading to the
[13:22] roof.
[13:23] Yes.
[13:24] These are permitted projections
[13:25] above the elevation because
[13:27] they are functional,
[13:28] as the goal of the
[13:31] form-based code is to
[13:33] have a wall space of
[13:34] at least 30 feet
[13:35] to ensure
[13:38] compatibility or
[13:39] at least compatibility
[13:41] and cohesion with
[13:42] other facades.
[13:48] Yes. This was a
[13:50] clarification that had already
[13:51] been made. Does Mario have any
[13:53] questions?
[14:02] I'll hold off on
[14:03] my questions for now.
[14:05] Good. because I would like to
[14:07] hear the correct
[14:08] application.
[14:09] Yes. I mean, I
[14:10] guess I have
[14:11] one question. We did not
[14:12] consider
[14:13] engineering issues.
[14:15] During a
[14:16] site plan review
[14:17] by Royal Professional
[14:18] Services, a
[14:20] potential
[14:21] ADA issue was identified. Can you
[14:23] say something about this
[14:24] ?
[14:26] I can say something
[14:27] because I worked with
[14:28] Paul on this. Ahem.
[14:32] The biggest problem
[14:33] occurs during
[14:34] construction when
[14:35] they have scaffolding
[14:36] in front of the building.
[14:37] The question is how
[14:38] people will
[14:39] access and
[14:39] get around this,
[14:40] as there will be
[14:42] very little space left for pedestrians. So
[14:43] they're going to have to
[14:44] build what he
[14:45] calls a sidewalk,
[14:46] or a canopy, or something
[14:47] like that, and that has yet to
[14:48] be determined,
[14:48] designed, and
[14:49] approved, but it's a
[14:50] requirement on their part
[14:51] .
[14:51] I can
[14:52] answer that.
[14:53] Yes.
[14:53] Good. Perfectly. Hmm, another
[14:55] point in his
[14:56] notes—they didn't
[14:57] indicate exactly on the
[14:58] plan where the sewer
[14:59] and water lines would be
[15:00] connected, but the
[15:00] existing networks are already there.
[15:02] They just didn't
[15:02] mark them on the plan
[15:04] , but they're there.
[15:04] So they will
[15:05] reconnect to the same ones
[15:06] .
[15:08] Yes. I thought it would be
[15:10] easy
[15:10] to show on the plan.
[15:12] OK.
[15:16] And I would like to ask
[15:17] if you are considering
[15:18] any garden boxes in the
[15:19] backyard with
[15:24] landscaping or any
[15:25] other
[15:26] vegetation.
[15:28] Well, Leslie, why do
[15:29] n't we use this as a
[15:30] transition?
[15:31] Good.
[15:32] Hmm, to hear
[15:33] the applicant.
[15:36] So if you would
[15:37] please come close
[15:39] enough to the podium,
[15:40] state your
[15:41] name and your connection to the
[15:42] object, and then we
[15:43] will open
[15:44] the discussion.
[15:50] Yes. Sorry, I
[15:53] missed it. So, we are
[15:54] missing a brick here.
[16:03] This is a brick for the
[16:03] exterior
[16:04] decoration of a building.
[16:08] My name is Brian
[16:10] Howard, HF
[16:11] Architecture. I'm based in
[16:13] Roja, I'm an architect, and
[16:14] part of my
[16:16] family is here. Vinnie and Lisa are
[16:19] overseas so
[16:20] they couldn't be
[16:22] here, but we have a great
[16:23] presentation with the rest of the
[16:24] family. So,
[16:29] to answer the
[16:30] questions that
[16:31] Mario raised,
[16:33] just for color.
[16:35] I actually increased
[16:37] the height of the building by 30
[16:38] feet and even have
[16:39] a drawing of the facade to
[16:40] show how that 30
[16:48] feet or that 2 inches
[16:49] was added. Did
[16:54] you just increase the
[16:56] eaves or something else?
[16:57] Yes, I did not increase
[16:58] the height inside
[16:59] the building.
[17:00] Of course.
[17:02] Because, you know, I was
[17:03] a little worried that
[17:05] the equipment on the roof would be visible.
[17:09] This rooftop equipment is
[17:10] set
[17:11] back quite far, but I don't
[17:12] think
[17:13] it would be
[17:14] visible at all from the other side of the street.
[17:16] But that only helps
[17:17] hide it even
[17:18] better. So this
[17:21] minimum height of 30
[17:22] feet that I
[17:23] increased to actually
[17:25] gives us more...I would
[17:26] call it maybe not a
[17:27] billboard,
[17:29] if that's the correct
[17:30] definition. This rather
[17:34] gives the building a little
[17:35] more visibility,
[17:37] as it is now
[17:38] taller than the neighboring
[17:39] building. So this, in my opinion, is a
[17:43] nice transition
[17:44] from that building to
[17:46] our new facility.
[17:50] So, and I'll just
[17:51] pass this around. This is
[17:54] the color of the window frames, as well
[17:56] as the color of the
[17:56] front awning. This is the
[18:00] limestone that will be the
[18:01] lintels above
[18:02] the windows, as well as
[18:03] the foundation on which
[18:04] the building stands. And this
[18:09] will be a block with an
[18:10] integral
[18:11] color, which will be
[18:12] on the side or
[18:13] northern part of the
[18:14] building's facade. So,
[18:16] we don't have units
[18:18] at the front or
[18:19] back of the
[18:20] building. This
[18:20] only applies to the
[18:21] north facade. I
[18:23] made the
[18:24] brickwork
[18:25] turn at both
[18:26] corners of this
[18:26] north facade. You
[18:28] can see it in
[18:29] the drawing I
[18:30] provided. I made a
[18:33] turn in the brickwork
[18:34] at both corners
[18:35] so that when looking at the
[18:36] building from the north,
[18:37] the brick would set
[18:39] back about four feet. So you won't
[18:42] see the blocks until you get
[18:44] four feet away, and then
[18:45] you'll see them. The same thing
[18:47] happens on the
[18:48] other side, when you're
[18:49] maybe walking down
[18:50] the street and looking at the
[18:51] back of a
[18:52] building. You will also
[18:53] see the brick
[18:54] turning there as well. This
[18:56] was one solution
[18:58] that I think
[18:58] answers your
[19:00] question: no
[19:01] painted blocks,
[19:02] which I think
[19:03] usually doesn't look
[19:04] very good. So I
[19:07] think it probably
[19:08] won't be a chipped block,
[19:09] this is the only sample
[19:10] I had. It
[19:14] will be just a flat
[19:15] block, but the same
[19:16] color with visible
[19:17] filler. So,
[19:21] I have other
[19:21] north facades from the
[19:22] previous
[19:23] drawing.
[19:24] They may not show the
[19:25] same height of the parapet,
[19:26] but they give a good
[19:27] idea of ​​the view from
[19:28] the north.
[19:29] Yes, this parapet
[19:30] also became 8 inches
[19:31] taller as
[19:32] it went up the
[19:33] stairs. So, from
[19:34] back to
[19:36] front it
[19:36] increases by
[19:37] eight inches,
[19:38] gradually
[19:39] rising to a
[19:40] greater height,
[19:41] because I did not want to have a high parapet suddenly when
[19:42] viewed from the north
[19:44] , and then a
[19:45] lower one four feet later;
[19:47] In my opinion, it does
[19:48] n't look very
[19:49] good. So I really
[19:52] tried to
[19:53] integrate this better into the
[19:54] new
[20:03] question about the block:
[20:04] where is it in
[20:05] the front, or just in
[20:06] the back, when you look from
[20:07] above to the south,
[20:08] you can see that this wall
[20:10] juts out over the
[20:10] Charles building,
[20:11] now it's sold,
[20:13] that's the wall that's
[20:16] good,
[20:19] I also did a
[20:20] calculation of the percentage of
[20:22] transparency, and it was
[20:23] 74%. So,
[20:29] thanks to the garage
[20:30] door, my taller
[20:31] door, and the taller windows
[20:33] above the door, I
[20:34] actually exceeded
[20:35] 70%. It's 210 square
[20:43] feet on the first
[20:44] floor. So I think I think that
[20:54] answers all the
[20:56] questions.
[20:58] I think the only thing
[20:59] left is to
[21:01] make sure that the type is
[21:04] clear glass.
[21:06] This will be clear glass.
[21:08] This is insulated
[21:09] clear glass,
[21:10] as the canopy will
[21:11] actually shade it well
[21:12] . The sun
[21:14] will be blocked
[21:16] by this canopy. So we're not
[21:19] too concerned about
[21:20] overheating or anything
[21:21] like that that would bother the
[21:22] visitors
[21:23] inside.
[21:28] As soon as the sun
[21:29] drops lower,
[21:30] it hides behind
[21:32] the buildings on the western
[21:33] side.
[21:35] The canopy protrudes 3
[21:36] feet, right?
[21:37] Yes, that's right. I will be
[21:44] happy to answer
[21:45] questions. Are the bricks
[21:46] you use
[21:48] full-bodied or not?
[21:49] Good. This is a regular
[21:50] brick of standard
[21:51] size.
[21:51] Yes, they simply aren't
[21:52] made because they
[21:53] seem too
[21:54] heavy.
[21:54] Got it.
[21:55] If we made a
[21:55] solid brick. So,
[21:57] I understand. But yes, it's a
[21:58] full layer of masonry.
[22:00] Answers. This was
[22:01] one of the questions I
[22:02] had because the description
[22:03] said "facing
[22:04] ". So I sometimes
[22:06] architects
[22:07] do that.
[22:07] Good.
[22:09] Joe asked me the
[22:10] same question
[22:11] today.
[22:12] Yes. After talking to
[22:13] Justin, he
[22:14] asked me, "I think
[22:15] this is a real brick,
[22:16] but let me
[22:17] make sure."
[22:18] Another option that
[22:19] causes problems
[22:20] is called thin
[22:21] brick,
[22:22] but since the brick
[22:24] is not a load-bearing element, that's why
[22:27] Yes, that was my
[22:28] concern, that it would be
[22:29] something like a
[22:31] quarter inch.
[22:31] Yes.
[22:39] Open this building.
[22:48] Mario also had
[22:49] a few comments.
[22:51] One thing about
[22:52] lighting,
[22:54] what are your plans for
[22:55] that?
[22:55] Yes. The front
[22:57] canopy will have
[22:57] built-in
[22:58] lights. They
[22:59] will shine straight
[23:00] down onto the sidewalk. The
[23:04] rear canopy will have a
[23:05] different type of
[23:06] structure near the
[23:07] rear door, near the
[23:08] entrance. These will be
[23:12] ordinary wall
[23:13] sconces mounted on the
[23:14] wall. They also
[23:17] shine exclusively
[23:18] downwards. Actually, I can
[23:21] show you a photo. While
[23:29] you are searching. Uh, I
[23:30] assume you'll have
[23:39] the lighting for it as soon as you get the sign ready
[23:40] .
[23:42] Yes. Yes. I mean,
[23:43] we haven't even
[23:44] gotten to the
[23:45] sign issue yet.
[23:47] So, here is this
[23:48] lamp.
[23:50] This is an LED
[23:52] mounted on a
[23:53] mount. This will be from
[23:54] behind. Right.
[23:55] Yes. And that's
[23:57] just for lighting the
[23:58] back path, right?
[24:01] Uh, not to
[24:01] diffuse the light, but
[24:03] just to direct it downwards.
[24:08] And how will the
[24:09] front door be illuminated?
[24:12] There is a built-in light underneath them
[24:13] , as
[24:14] the doors are
[24:15] in a recess. Good.
[24:19] Um, also regarding the
[24:24] garbage
[24:25] dump. Are you
[24:26] planning
[24:27] to use an
[24:28] existing one? Good. And,
[24:31] Mario, you mentioned
[24:32] removing
[24:33] cooking oils and
[24:34] fats. Is this... We
[24:39] have an internal
[24:40] grease trap in our building, in the basement of the new building, that
[24:41] will be cleaned.
[24:43] Of course.
[24:46] We don't throw it in
[24:47] some
[24:48] grease container by the trash can.
[24:51] This is what
[24:52] everyone else
[24:53] downtown has to do because their
[24:54] buildings are so old.
[24:55] They didn't have it, and now with the
[24:56] new internal
[24:57] grease trap it will be
[24:58] much better.
[25:02] This is not usually
[25:03] regulated by
[25:04] zoning regulations,
[25:05] but if we
[25:06] do it, it will make things
[25:07] a little easier for everyone.
[25:13] Yes, Mr. Schur. If
[25:14] you allow me, I'll go back
[25:15] to what
[25:17] Leslie was talking about earlier. Um, the
[25:18] property line runs
[25:19] right along the
[25:20] back of this building,
[25:22] on the north side.
[25:23] So, most of the
[25:24] territory behind
[25:25] belongs to the village. I
[25:26] mean, there's a
[25:27] little strip that
[25:28] deviates on the
[25:29] southern edge.
[25:30] But the back is
[25:31] a little bit angled.
[25:32] Yes.
[25:32] So I had to
[25:33] change the configuration of
[25:34] the building to
[25:35] get within the boundaries or,
[25:36] in fact, not touch
[25:37] them.
[25:38] Of course. And to
[25:39] answer your
[25:41] question about
[25:41] Paul's comment about the
[25:43] front sidewalk, we
[25:44] took that into account in the
[25:45] last set of
[25:46] permits we submitted
[25:47] .
[25:48] Good.
[25:48] And we discussed this
[25:49] directly with
[25:50] Paul. My civil engineer
[25:52] discussed.
[25:53] We are not
[25:53] required
[25:54] to install a canopy
[25:55] over the sidewalk. Good.
[25:57] Because of our distance,
[25:59] we made a detour
[26:00] around the
[26:01] lamppost.
[26:02] They complied with all
[26:04] ADA requirements around it and
[26:05] moved the sidewalk
[26:06] further away from the building. So
[26:08] when you come in from
[26:09] the south, there will be a
[26:10] gate at the south
[26:12] entrance of this fence,
[26:15] it will be 8
[26:16] feet wide for
[26:17] workers and so on. And
[26:19] you still have the
[26:20] necessary
[26:21] sidewalk width. We didn't
[26:22] have to go into a
[26:23] parking area or
[26:25] anything like that.
[26:25] Very good.
[26:29] So, to be clear:
[26:30] since there is
[26:31] very little space, you are
[26:32] not planning anything
[26:33] along the building?
[26:36] Simply because we do
[26:38] n't have space.
[26:39] Yeah, I just...
[26:40] Yeah. No, I think that,
[26:43] you know, maybe when
[26:45] they occupy the
[26:45] building and
[26:46] open up, they'll
[26:47] put some
[26:48] flower pots in there or something,
[26:49] but in terms of
[26:50] landscaping
[26:51] , it won't survive there.
[26:55] You know, there's nothing
[26:56] left there.
[26:57] Yes. I just wanted to
[26:58] clarify.
[26:59] Yes. So, I guess
[27:01] they're going to
[27:02] do something with
[27:03] seasonal things, I think
[27:04] .
[27:05] Yes. I mean, I'm
[27:06] sure you will
[27:07] . This is a very
[27:08] beautiful project,
[27:09] designed with
[27:10] great attention to
[27:11] detail. I'm sure
[27:13] you'll consider all the
[27:23] pretty Last
[27:31] question. Joe, did the
[27:34] DEA check this?
[27:35] They saw the plan.
[27:36] They're not really...
[27:37] yeah. I mean,
[27:38] they support...
[27:39] yeah.
[27:39] concerns
[27:40] they had, or
[27:41] No, I have one
[27:50] question. So, on
[27:53] your
[27:53] administrative
[27:54] side, we heard from
[27:55] Brian how they
[27:56] addressed these points
[27:58] in your letter in the
[27:59] recommendations section
[28:00] . However, uh, based on what
[28:03] we've
[28:04] been presented with,
[28:05] there remains a requirement
[28:06] for formal
[28:07] filing of documents
[28:08] to, say,
[28:12] confirm what
[28:13] Brian told us today
[28:14] . Right.
[28:15] Yes. So, this would be a uh-uh
[28:18] application.
[28:26] Yes. OK.
[28:33] Uh, does anyone have any other
[28:37] comments,
[28:38] questions, or
[28:38] concerns?
[28:40] Good. I am satisfied.
[28:41] All my questions and
[28:43] everything else were
[28:44] answered thanks to
[28:45] everything that
[28:46] was resolved for me. Uh,
[28:48] so I think if no
[28:50] one else has any
[28:51] questions, comments,
[28:53] or statements, uh, I'll make a
[28:54] suggestion. Uh, I am
[28:57] making a motion
[28:58] to approve the
[28:59] development plan for
[29:00] 18 South Washington Street.
[29:04] The development plan is
[29:05] subject to the
[29:06] recommendations and
[29:07] requirements set forth in
[29:09] McKenna's letter of
[29:10] September 9, 2026.
[29:18] OK. Uh, and also
[29:21] yeah,
[29:21] we need to,
[29:23] you know, include Row in
[29:25] this uh
[29:27] yeah, and and a letter from the uh
[29:28] fire department
[29:32] well yeah, theirs is there,
[29:34] regarding the
[29:36] efforts supported this.
[29:42] OK. Uh, Madam
[29:43] Secretary, then a
[29:44] roll call vote
[29:46] on the motion to
[29:48] yes.
[29:48] Wagner,
[29:49] yes.
[29:51] Schultz,
[29:52] yes.
[29:54] Flynn,
[29:55] yes.
[29:56] And
[29:57] yes,
[29:59] thank you. Congratulations.
[30:01] Thank you.
[30:04] We rejoice. Congratulations. I'm
[30:07] very happy for the building
[30:08] , happy that this is
[30:09] happening, and happy
[30:10] for this business. So, oh,
[30:12] welcome. This is
[30:14] disappointing.
[30:17] OK. Fantastically.
[30:18] OK. Perfectly.
[30:20] If all goes well,
[30:21] when is the
[30:22] opening time?
[30:23] We're just
[30:24] trying to move
[30:26] as quickly as possible right now,
[30:28] but we want to do
[30:29] everything right because we're
[30:30] focused on the
[30:31] long
[30:32] term. This is not
[30:34] just a job. We
[30:37] put
[30:39] our whole heart and soul into it. We
[30:41] all work as a family
[30:43] and there are about 15 of us on
[30:44] Mile Road. So now
[30:46] we have to
[30:47] split up. This is
[30:48] too much.
[30:48] Who will move to the new
[30:50] place—that is the question.
[30:51] These two.
[30:53] Perfectly.
[30:55] Thank you. I appreciate it.
[30:57] And we, we love,
[30:58] you know, we women
[31:00] love to decorate, and
[31:01] chefs
[31:02] come up with new ideas every season.
[31:07] We change our
[31:08] specials every
[31:09] four months, and that's what I was
[31:10] telling
[31:12] our customers at work today
[31:13] : when you
[31:14] come to our
[31:15] restaurant, you're home.
[31:16] So even if you
[31:17] break a plate, it's okay
[31:18] . You are
[31:20] at home.
[31:23] Put it in
[31:33] our environment, you
[31:36] know. We are very
[31:40] detailed
[31:41] about everything because we like
[31:43] to be impeccable,
[31:44] because if the customer is
[31:45] happy, then we are
[31:46] happy, and it's just,
[31:47] you know, we like to
[31:48] create a great
[31:49] community around
[31:50] us, and
[31:51] when people
[31:51] come back, it
[31:52] makes us feel like
[31:54] we are all one big
[31:55] happy family. That's what
[31:56] we're saying, uh, we're one
[31:58] big happy
[32:00] family. We just
[32:01] love it. And my
[32:02] brother and I will continue to
[32:04] do this for the
[32:05] next, hopefully,
[32:06] 30-40 years, as long as
[32:07] we live.
[32:08] This is what we love to
[32:10] do. We've been working since we were
[32:12] 11-12 years old, and even though we
[32:13] both graduated from
[32:14] college, we still
[32:15] stayed with our
[32:16] parents because we
[32:18] just love our
[32:19] jobs.
[32:22] Fantasy.
[32:23] We started with this.
[32:24] We tried to get out of
[32:25] this.
[32:28] They are back again.
[32:29] Something simple. Thank you,
[32:35] Brian. Good job.
[32:42] Okay, we have no
[32:43] old cases, no
[32:44] comments from
[32:45] the public, just
[32:47] comments from
[32:47] consultants and
[32:48] administration.
[32:50] I just want to
[32:50] thank all of you
[32:51] for changing
[32:52] your schedules and being able to
[32:53] come tonight
[32:54] . And as I
[32:55] mentioned earlier, this
[32:56] will replace
[32:57] next week's meeting.
[32:59] We won't have anything next week.
[33:00] So thank you for doing
[33:02] this for them. Let's give them another
[33:03] week.
[33:04] Of course. Of course. Both that and
[33:06] our schedule.
[33:07] This was important. And I
[33:08] will take this opportunity,
[33:09] for the record, to
[33:11] thank Joe for
[33:12] preparing the package of
[33:13] documents and
[33:14] submitting it to the
[33:15] commissioners.
[33:16] Personally delivered.
[33:18] I don't know where
[33:19] Dave lives. We had to
[33:19] come and pick
[33:20] him up. So,
[33:21] sorry. I didn't stop by
[33:22] .
[33:23] This is intentional.
[33:25] I am happy to do this.
[33:27] Especially when there are such
[33:28] printouts, and
[33:28] printing them on
[33:29] larger
[33:30] format paper is exactly what is
[33:31] needed. Uh, and that
[33:32] gives you, you know, you
[33:34] can get a chance to
[33:35] review them.
[33:36] We will ensure this
[33:37] when such
[33:38] printouts are available.
[33:39] Yes.
[33:41] Dave, any news
[33:42] from the
[33:43] township planning commission?
[33:44] Yes. So, we are deeply
[33:46] immersed in drafting an
[33:49] ADA center ordinance. We held a
[33:50] large public
[33:51] hearing, attended by
[33:52] about 400 people.
[33:54] Um, we're planning
[33:55] another public
[33:56] hearing, probably
[33:58] in early November,
[33:59] to come to some sort of
[34:00] decision. Yes, I think
[34:02] we're about 80% done
[34:03] with the
[34:04] resolution. We are now
[34:06] reviewing
[34:07] public comments and
[34:08] working to
[34:09] incorporate their
[34:10] concerns. And just so
[34:12] you know, to make it
[34:13] clear: no one
[34:16] contacted us, the village administration,
[34:17] about building a
[34:18] data center.
[34:20] We introduced a
[34:21] regulation, uh,
[34:22] postponing the
[34:25] moratorium, uh, for a year
[34:26] last November.
[34:28] So we have time between now
[34:29] and
[34:30] mid-November
[34:31] to finalize
[34:32] the resolution, and there
[34:35] are no non-disclosure agreements here. Nobody communicates with anyone
[34:37] . So
[34:38] at the moment,
[34:39] nothing is happening behind the scenes
[34:40] . We are
[34:41] simply focused
[34:42] on this resolution.
[34:45] OK. Thank you ZBA or DD. Are
[34:49] there any other
[34:49] comments from the
[34:51] committee members?
[34:53] Uh, I just want to
[34:55] say that it's really
[34:56] nice when the
[34:57] document packages and
[34:58] site plans are as
[34:59] complete as they were
[35:00] today, because there
[35:01] were times when
[35:02] they were incomplete
[35:04] and people had to
[35:05] keep coming back
[35:06] , they didn't have
[35:07] the answers, and they
[35:08] weren't ready. So
[35:11] thank you, uh, you know,
[35:12] for the administrative
[35:14] part, and thank you to
[35:15] Mario for
[35:16] preparing such a
[35:17] well-
[35:17] rounded
[35:18] package of documents. It makes
[35:21] our job a lot easier
[35:22] , so that we can,
[35:24] uh, so that we can
[35:25] and that they
[35:26] invited
[35:27] an architect here with
[35:27] ready-made answers
[35:28] .
[35:29] Yes, that's great.
[35:30] Yes.
[35:30] So thank you.
[35:31] Please.
[35:32] This is the best part.
[35:34] Good. Then, uh, with
[35:36] that, I
[35:39] propose to adjourn the
[35:41] meeting at 7:35.
[35:42] I support this
[35:43] proposal.
[35:43] OK. Accepted.